Someone signing only as “Albert” has written a brilliant piece on US Government ideology circa 2011. It was buried in the comments at the popular Mangan blog. I reproduce it here so more eyes might yet see it. It’s 2,000 words, but worth the time. (Thanks to commenter ICR at Occidental-Dissent for calling my attention to it.)

I have added suitable section subtitles for clarity of reading. (The title and anything between the —— symbols is mine; everything else is commenter Albert’s original.)

__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
// The View From a Cog in the USA’s
Aggressive-Multicultacracy Machine //

As a man who is both living in Europe and who works for the State Department, I feel it is my duty to comment on this post and those prior speaking to Department initiatives with regard to minority populations in Europe and elsewhere. Obviously, I am not using my real name and the views I express here are my own personal views and are in no way sanctioned by the USG, which would be appalled that I was reading such sites, let along commenting on them.

I apologize in advance if this goes long, but I believe that given the New Right’s interest in Wikileaks and the stories that have arisen out of it that my observations from the inside are relevant and would be of interest to my fellow heathens.

To be immersed in the Department for any length of time is to know with absolute certainty that the battle of ideas, for the highest seat of power, for the basic outlook of the United States of America is over and it has been won by globalist, multi-culturalist, liberal capitalism. That is to say, the USG is currently fanatically devoted to a world-view that can best be described in shorthand as a mix between the Wall St Journal pro-global business and open borders stance and the ideology one would find in the Office for Multi-Cultural Affairs at a major liberal arts university.

Mencius Moldbug (whose father was in the Foreign Service, and as he once pointed out to Larry Auster, when a person IN the Foreign Service and a person who grew up in the Foreign Service are telling you, who are NOT in USG that USG is fully and completely committed to the modern liberal revolution and is not capable of being reformed, one should LISTEN) is completely correct in noting that this view has hardened into an ideology and has intertwined itself so thoroughly in the popular mind with what it means to be “American” that nothing short of an intense crisis or a complete breakdown will bring about any change. Certainly, electing this or that Republican makes no difference to the Permanent Government.

—— The DemoRepublicratican Ruling Party ——
You may have noticed that President Obama’s policies are not significantly different than President Bush’s, which are both similar to President Clinton’s and, rhetoric aside, not very different from President Reagan’s. The reasons for this would take a book, but put simply Mencius is correct that liberal capitalist democracy is both universalist and a form of religion, arising out of deep Protestant and Quaker roots, and that what we are witnessing is merely the playing out of that tendency to its logical conclusion.

I say this as a way of putting my comments into context. While I remain because there is still a possibility for change (rationalization or not, I keep thinking that there must have been some members of the Soviet diplomatic service who realized that their nation’s devotion to an outdated ideology that didn’t work would someday come to an end and it was his duty to the Russian people to remain at post to help when that day came, but I’m probably kidding myself), the points raised in the comments about Conservatives not getting the fundamental nature of USG is not only true, its extremely true. As the post both here and at Alt Right demonstrated, not even clear-thinking members of the New Right have fully taken in that the USG is now the enemy.

Because, let’s fact it, bravado aside, that’s a difficult thing for an American to accept. It’s much easier for Europeans to accept this; they have a history of governments who need overthrowing. But in the long history of the American Republic, never, I think, has there been a time where the Government of the United States was ideologically committed to the wholesale destruction and replacement of the American people, their history, their identity, their ideals and their very being. The Civil War is a partial exception to that and, I’m starting to believe, a lesson that we Americans for too long smugly ignored.

—— What Do They Mean by “Democracy”? ——
In any case, on to the matters at hand with that background in mind. With regard to the post American Diversity Outreach, it is my sad duty to report to you that the USG is actively promoting this not only in France but throughout the European Union and elsewhere. The US Government views the future and the meaning of the very word “democracy” to mean a democracy on the modern liberal capitalist globalist United States model, i.e. mass democracy with an extremely multi-ethnic population. To that end, historical nations are merely administrative bodies with particular historical backgrounds. A Turkish German is German. A Muslim Frenchman is French. Anyone who says otherwise is evil and will not be tolerated. Moves by any European government to treat their citizens differently based on ethnicity are viewed by USG as the same a denying Blacks in the U.S. civil rights and sends them into a shrieking frenzy. Any political party that opposes this is “monitored” by the U.S. and U.S. political and diplomatic capital is spent to discredit them.

In addition, the U.S. is fully committed to the proposition that the U.S. and Europe are Muslim as well as Christian and Jewish and Whatever entities. To that end, the U.S. has supported Albania and has created the new Muslim state of Kosovo. Kosovo and Albania are both led by criminals and murderers but in our ideological zeal this is not seen for what it is. It is seen, typically, as a need for MORE U.S. involvement, more “good governance” programs, more lectures to other Europeans that they’re not doing their part to integrate these countries into the European family. A quick example suffices to make my point.

—— Good for the Egyptian Goose, Bad for the European Gander ——
As is now well-known, USG has come down squarely on the side of the protesters in Egypt, calling for Mubarak to step down. In doing so, we have trumpeted the right of the Egyptian people to freedom of speech and assembly and their right to petition to government as to their grievances.

However, in Kosovo, when in the north a group of ethnic Serbs gathered peacefully to demonstrate against the Kosovo government by picketing outside a local government office, which resulted in someone—presumably a Muslim—rolling a grenade into the demonstration, killing some demonstrators, our USG man on the spot reported that while the situation was lamentable, true responsibility for the deaths fell to the Serbs, who should have known that such an open demonstration would provoke Muslim violence.

So much for freedom of speech and assembly! So much for the right to petition a government of one’s grievances!

I see this sort of thing many times a day. The only thing one can conclude from this is that the USG has become fanatically ideological and will cram any facts into contortions to fit its ideological world-view. That this crazed body carries such immense power and weight bodes extremely ill for both the American people and the world.

—— Multikultacracy Weaker in Europe Than USA ——
With regard to this report on Muslims in Europe, it makes a point that I have long ago seen clearly here in Europe: American conservative crowing over the death of Europe and the coming of Eurabia are wildly overblown and assume that Europe and its people won’t tell USG to piss off at some point. (Exception: The United Kingdom, which has terminal cancer, is dying and should serve as a warning to all Anglo nations, but hasn’t to date. It’s almost impossible to overstate the abject ugliness and dysfunction of this nation that once ruled the world, a nation whose capital you can fly to today and literally see the barbarians walking the streets of Empire, streets they themselves lack the capacity to build).

Note that the figures, even taken as they are, show no significant minorities anywhere, with the possible exception of France. Even there, the numbers are ridiculously small compared to the Black and Latino populations in the United States, especially in my native California. Europe has nowhere near the minority problem that the U.S. does and could rid itself of it, even at this late stage, with ease. While the State Department reflects its ideology and is chock full of Asians, Latinos, Arabs, Indians, Mexicans, Blacks and just about every other minority you could think of (all of whom are totally 100% American, in the modern, globalist multi-cultural sense), you’d be hard pressed to find any such diversity in the government service of any European country.

Keep in mind also that this study includes the Balkans, with its large Muslim population left over from Ottoman times.

In this respect, Fjordman is quite correct: USG is an enemy not only of its people but of the European people. While it is true that the European elite is as compromised on the USG-led ideology as the U.S. elite is, the fact on the ground here is that the common European people have NOT bought into this view. Among the common folk here, even on the Left, there is much less tolerance for “diversity” than among average Americans. Thus, the reaction begins quicker.

France is a special case in this regard since its official ideology—like that of a triumphant liberal America—is universalist. However, on the ground, the French still know who is French and who just carries a French passsport—and the French are not known for going quietly when the chips are really down.

So, given this, what is to be done?

Three things, I think.

—— What Are Dissidents To Do? ——
First, domestically, the New Right has to convince Americans that the USG no longer represents them or their interests, in an out-of-control behemoth and needs not reform but a wholesale political movement to perform deep and quick change. It’s time to stop beating around the bush and to talk straight to the American people about where we are and where we are headed. The U.K. is doing the Anglosphere a final service by demonstrating in real time where we are all headed. It needs to be pointed to and its warning heeding. Only a popular movement which approaches this issue with intelligence, wit and insight, bold and fearless about speaking the truth out loud and proud, stands any chance. Not a good chance, mind you, but a fool’s chance. Still, duty is duty and I don’t see how we can avoid taking this chance.

Second, with regard to Europe, the New Right has to convince the traditional, nationalist parties and people of Europe that if they tell USG to fuck off and to remove troops, stay out of our affairs and to accept that Europe is a continent of ethnic nation-states that they will enjoy the support of the American people, if not the American Government. This also can be used as a wedge between the American people and USG.

Third, we need at the same time as we proceed along the lines above, realize that we are dealing with an immense monster of incredible power and influence, one that has had the world by the throat now for decades and which as educated many generations of Americans to believe sincerely that everything USG stands for is hope and light and anyone who opposes is merely the first step to Auschwitz.

Given that fact, it is very likely we shall fail. We should therefore be also planning amongst ourselves what we should do if it becomes clear that we have failed. Some sort of withdrawal or alternative community is necessary if we are to preserve our culture and our heritage and not enough serious thinking has been put into Plan B at the moment.

While our elites are flying high at the moment, their ideology is unworkable. While they appear more vigorous, they in reality are not much differently placed than the frozen leaders of the CPSU waving from atop Lenin’s Tomb.

While we are few, so were those few in Prague who decades before the Iron Curtain fell put on plays in secret demonstrating the foolishness of the ruling ideology.

This is the task before us: to accept that we are dissidents and opponents. To accept that it is our duty to resist. To use art to express that resistance, the win intellectuals and people of ability to our side. To forge contacts with supporters in the outside world. To slowly expand our influence and never, ever stop laughing at the State.

And when it comes crashing, and I believe it will, we will be there, smiling and laughing.

[End of piece by anonymous author Albert, who identifies as a State Dept. employee in Europe].

63 Responses to Capitalist Liberal Multicultacracy

I made the awakening you speak of, about a year or two ago. It all just suddenly hit me. A 4th of July, I think it was, when suddenly I realized it was a time of mourning, not celebration. I have still not found an effective way to communicate this to family members or friends during our many nationalist holidays. You are speaking of a very long walk.

I think the separation you speak of involves, of necessity, a mass media voice. I know there are many individual enterprises out there. The next step must be to bring them all together, and leverage the synchronicity. Do you know anyone who is doing so, or attempting it, or even planning it?

Justin,
RE: Your remarks about the 4th of July. I had a similar experience after September 11th, but not at all in the way you might think.

Those were strange times to live through in the USA. Flags everywhere. I have never seen anything like it. Before Sept./Oct. 2001, I expect one would have to go back to WWII to find a similar “ambiance”.

Ten years on, I’m not sure I quite understand my reaction even now, so I doubt I’ll be able to explain it now, but here goes: I lived in a diverse area, with a high number of recent immigrants. I [white, all grandparents born here] was apolitical and pretty much PC. (In the coming years I would move towards my present political understanding.)

Something about the flying of these flags by so many multicultural residents was vaguely…disturbing, or off-putting. So many of these guys had only a few years before wriggled their way in, via an employment-visa scam, or the old chain-migrant route, or what have you. (I would not have used such terminology in 2001. Again I was a PCling.) It was not openly disturbing, but only vaguely so. Something didn’t sit right.

I do remember thinking, further, that what was on display was “phony patriotism”, but that came from another source. It did not explain the vague unpleasantness related to the sudden embrace by nonwhite immigrants of the Stars-and-Stripes. I ignored my feeling, as people tend to do.

Some time later, I realized what had happened: Back then, it hit me that the U.S. flag was worthless as a national symbol, the symbol of a specific Nation, or People. Consider: If I go to Jordan to work for an oil company, let’s say, and Jordan suffers some tragedy, will I start enthusiastically waving Jordanian flags all over the place, draping them from my home’s windows, on my car, and so on? No, that is laughable. I would sympathize with the people who had suffered, but this flag their symbol, and I respect that. If you or I went to Japan, and they had some disaster, it’d be the same. It just wouldn’t be something to occur to someone to wave a foreign flag in such a circumstance.

Yet here were tens of thousands of immigrants, with weak ties to the USA and little care for the country, flying the U.S. flag. It occurred to me then — without me realizing, I think — that the Flag was a commodity, that U.S. citizenship itself on a “spiritual” level had become worthless. (On a “practical” level it is worth quite a lot: perhaps an EU passport is better now, but that is debatable).

Agreed. A few additional points, and a conclusion as to why the developments you noted in 2001 did not sit well in your stomach. It is all very simple:

The name we had used to use for our identity/culture – American – has become code word for embracing everyone else’s identity/culture except the WASP-ism that was the U.S. core; meanwhile, the people who come to America, who are automatically “Americans”, retain their culture and root/cultural identities.

You know when the last time this happened was?

– when the Poles and the Germans conducted a murderous crusade against the Baltic peoples, particularly against a tribe called the Prussians. Then, the Germans started calling themselves Prussians, while also retaining their identity of Germans.

– when the Anglo-Saxons sailed across the Atlantic, pushed back and, ultimately killed the Natives in a place America..they started calling themselves Americans. Yet the identified with the Euro-Christian culture they brought to the Americas.

What you are responding to: the destruction of a people. Bloodshed is not necessary for this genocide. We’re killing ourselves because we’ve accepted our replacement, they our outbreeding us, and to hold on to our identities is seen as backward, racist, intolerant.

As soon as you start to wonder if any of the things that come with our replacement are good, you will start to recognize the replacement…and your stomach will turn.

You did see some “I have sympathy with Japan” flags go up across the world after the tsunami disaster this year, in 2011. But when I think back to the other incidents, foreign flags being flown in the US or Europe, they are “I have sympathy with Georgia” (due to the conflict with Russia over South Ossetia) or “I have sympathy with Lebanon” (due to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon) flags. And guess what? Those people flying the flags WERE predominantly Georgian or Lebanese. So: your argument stands! Flying flags is generally a symbol of one’s identification with that culture group. It has little to do with an identification due to general human compassion.

That’s the part you missed in your example about going to Jordan and not waving their flag. You did not take up Jordan citizenship, you are there as a guest and you are there for work. When 40,000,000 people do the same as you, then the Jordanians have a problem. But the Jordanians are still Jordanians; they still have their culture and identity, unchanged by you; you and the 40,000,000 others are whatever they were before they came to Jordan, they do not become the definition of Jordanian. This is not the case in the US, which is why WHAT IS HAPPENING IS SO DEADLY. You are seeing a challenge to your identity and your people. The group that you saw as a representation of yourself is dying. And so, in a way, you are dying as well.

There is Pat Buchanan. I’m surprised the amount they let him get away with. The so-called Patriot Movement has done a decent job setting up their own media via radio especially. It’s arguable that they gave birth to the early Tea Party. Republic Broadcasting Network is one of theirs.

James Edwards‘ radio show is a good one, too (much of the time, anyway), on a number of AM radio stations. Though they are far from “mass media”.

Justin wrote:I know there are many individual enterprises out there. The next step must be to bring them all together, and leverage the synchronicity. Do you know anyone who is doing so, or attempting it, or even planning it?

I am not sure what you mean by “bringing them all together”. As Hunter Wallace points out, most do not join their own groups.

As a general note, I’d point out in the Communist sphere, the dissidents never got a mass media voice. They used underground “samizdat” publishing, and it’s unclear (to me) how much role they even had in bringing down the Soviet system.

My comments: First, this is a great piece describing things as they are. Keeping that in mind, I will criticize what I see as its central weakness.

The author devotes only a single sentence out of his 2,100 words to how this all came about. He fails to mention any real historical basis, for anything. It’s almost as if he is implying that the ideology just fell out of the air one day, like manna. Unexplained and unexplainable. Considering that this is a broad analytical piece, that is…surprising.

His single sentence to provide any historical background is: “[Multicultacracy rose] out of deep Protestant and Quaker roots”, which makes no sense. Quakers have never been at the helm of opinion-shaping in the USA. And “Protestants”, generally, created racialist states where-ever they went: The USA, South-Africa, Australia. The Roman Catholic Church, as a self-consciously universalist entity, seems a more likely entity to blame. Sure enough, the rise of proto-Multicultacracy in the USA clearly correlates with the waves of Jews and Roman-Catholics through Ellis-Island. (Still, it is far too lazy to just wave the hand and declare “Bah, it’s because of the Jews [and/or the Roman Church]”.)

This “Blame the Protestants” idea has been popular in recent years among Jewish conservative intellectuals (I have heard it from the celebrated Paul Gottfried). It has been picked up even by many Whites of Protestant background, who want to seem respectable. The absurdity of the notion, again, is clear in the historical record: Nationalism in the USA was strongest when Protestantism was strongest; it is weakest today, when Protestantism is at its lowest ebb in 400+ years of White settlement of North America. (Although I will leave it at that, why this illogical argument appeals to Jewish conservatives should be obvious).

But, then, how did the current racio-political climate come about?

In early 2009, a syndicated column by some hack was published far and wide, and it foolishy declared: “The 21st century begins with the election of Obama” (in the sense that the 19th century “lasted until Nov. 1918″, which is a legitimate observation). I intended to write a pargraph or so to show that “No, Obama is not some kind of sea-change in global affairs. In fact, it is the precise opposite: Obama’s election was actually the ultimate continuation of 20th century politics: He is the crown jewel, so to speak, of the triumph of Capitalist Liberal Democracy.”

The intended short response ballooned into a much longer treatment, which expounded a simple thesis: 20th Century history must be understood as a conflict over the fate of European-Mankind. Sociopolitics was torn wide open after WWI. The Old-Order collapsed in the pointless 1914-1918 war. Three forces emerged to struggle for the soul of European Man thereafter. Capitalist-Liberal Democracy [CLD] was the undisputed winner of the three-way contest by 1989. The losers were Communism and “Voelkisch-ism” (Racialism).

During the course of the long struggle, both CLD and Communism sought to prop themselves up by demonizing (truly, dehumanizing) the competing ideology of Racialism. After WWII, demonization of racialism actually increased, to make sure their former competitor stayed down. CLD and Communism also both used demonization to bestow upon themselves “negative legitimacy” (i.e., “The racialists are/were the definition of Evil, but we defeated them, we saved the world!”). This was highly fertile ground for CLD towards legitimizing itself. The values internalized, though. The innocent, hands-in-pockets, idealistic notion of Capitalist Liberal Democracy, thus, in time, morphed into its ugly mutant cousin: Capitalist-Liberal-Multicultacracy. (A prime example of the old warning about staring into abysses). [There is also something to be said for Multiculturalism tending to be a natural product of Capitalism. Chomsky has written about Big Business as being among the most reliable anti-racists anywhere. “Why” has to do with common markets and so on.]

This simple process explains much of what we today call “PC”. Few people seem to understand this. So many people seem to think PC is some kind of bizarre accident that fell down upon us like manna from heaven. No, it was the odd byproduct of the conflicts of the 20th century. Values subsequently realigned. The logical result: By the 1990s, morality for the typical metropolitan white person was, essentially, defined as being Anti-Racialist, Anti-Nationalist, Xenophilic, Ethnomasochist. (Cf. “Stuff White People Like”).

I was also quite puzzled by the Quaker reference. Thanks for putting the Protestant-phobia in context as well.

Trying to puzzle out the meaning of the statement, I think the author is aiming at that tolerance and especially the anti-racialism of Quakerism, that would give rise to abolitionism. The culmination of this movement finds perfect expression in the person of Thaddeus Stevens, the architect of vindictive Reconstruction and patron saint of anti-racialism.

Stevens devoted his considerable talents and resources to breaking down both racial segregation and legal white supremacism. His ultimate plan was thwarted however, which involved the gift of 40 acres and 100 dollars to every freed slave family, including single men. He viewed the land gift as more important that suffrage.

Connecting back to your thesis, is in enlightening to note that Stevens was also a vocal prophet of capitalism, which he viewed as the force that would destroy everything he hated (which amounted to racialism and the landed aristocracy).

He was assuming familiarity with, or at least basing a lot of his argument on, the work of Mencius Moldbug. For more background on the Protestant / Quaker connection, you have to read some of Moldbug’s postings. Search those words at unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com

Justin,
RE The extremist Thaddeus Stevens, and the other “Radical Republicans”, that is a good example of native “anti-racialism”. Thankfully, they were a flash-in-the-pan, never a majority even of the Republicans [thus a small minority overall], and fizzled after the war.

I don’t see how you can blame this on the Catholics, given that Catholics have never been in the driver’s seat in America. This is a Protestant country, so the buck stops with the Protestants, for better or worse.

CE,
I do not “blame it on the Catholics”. What I was pointing out is, the Roman Church is a universalist entity, and inherently so. (Catholic means Universal, after all… One church for all Mankind). Why does the Catholic Church escape any blame?

You have a point that “the buck stops with the Protestants” in the USA. (Who are far from a single bloc, anyway). However, when Protestants had the most power in the USA, racialism was strongest. Is this not so?

Anyway, this is sidetracking and largely moot. I argued, as SteveM does in this comment, that this is the product of the peculiarities of the 20th century, especially the WWII and post-WWII eras. It is not some kind of conspiracy by any particular religious group, either Roman-Catholic or Jewish or “Protestant”.

It all makes sense if you analyse the critique from a Serbian Nationalist perspective. Hey Hail, are you Serbian? As someone with a Croat Heritage, unlike the Anglo’s here, I recognise the half truth propaganda method quite clearly.

Splitting the Western Christians by blaming the Catholics and reaching out to the Protestants is an old tactic. The attempt to reframe history by painting the poor Serbians as defenders of Europe instead of the butchers of the Balkans that they were.
Srebrenica wasn’t an attempt to purge Europe of the Muslim menace but an attempt at creating GrossSerbia.

Muslim nationalism in Yugoslavia began after after Serbian violence against the Muslims in Kosovo. The reason why the world supported the Muslims in Kosovo is not because the world supported some multiculti vision, rather the track legacy of Serbian/Communist Knighthood had been established in Bosnia and Croatia beforehand. People recognised that Srebrenica was a habit, not the exception.

The anti catholic stance is pure traditional Serbian Nationalism.

The West lost its mojo after WWI. In fact Western civilisation has been on a downhill run since then. And it was the Serbs that started that ball rolling. Let me guess, Gavrilo Princip was a fighter for Western Civilisation? Only in your tortured mind.

He blames the Catholic Church because he blames Catholic immigrants (Irish, Italian — but south German also?) for disrupting the racial balance of America, “priming” Anglo-Americans, as it were, for future waves of non-whites and desegregation. He will probably deny it, but you may be certain the blogger is a “nordicist” or basically hates southern Europeans like everyone else.

It isn’t Protestantism so much as it is Christianity. And it is Christianity because:

– it implants this seed of caring about all of God’s children – everyone is a descendant of Adam and Eve. Christianity is international in its outlook and has always been; it did not have to include the idea that “interracial families are good” to become a weapon of the multiculturalist globalists, the fact that it makes you want to help other people around the world is already a step towards shedding the view that “they are different” and moving towards mixing with these same peoples. In a global age, with increased mobility and communication, to care for one’s own stems from a rejection of a central tenet in Christianity.

– Christianity and the born into sin guilt. Sure makes it easy to accept the idea of White guilt.

-Christianity: accepting that God has a plan. and part of the plan includes the things going on – i.e. murder, rape, the destruction of our people – as a test, to see if we are truly filled with faith.

– tolerance rather than idealism; accepting that this world is not perfect because man is not perfect, nor can he ever be.

Similar to the example above, but with the addendum that the Messiah will eventually appear and, on Judgement Day, only the true will remain. Christianity is a peculiar religion because its decline in the World, and the movement towards a sin-filled Bizzaro world (where our people are misled and we feel like a stranger in our own lands filled with idols and false profits) is supposedly a confirmation that everything is ok because, in the end the Messiah will come. Goebbel’s Endsieg, anyone?

-however, Protestantism was more a step in the direction of the globalist capitalist multitocracy we have now, because it involved throwing away the central authority, Rome, and interpreting Christianity according to the scriptures, by reinterpreting the scriptures.

It is also pretty ironic that the only notable, large-scale group associated with protecting the interests of the Euro-Christian world was the Ku Klux Klan. And was the Klan Christian? Its “blacks are women-rapers, thieves and brutes” simplicities sure weren’t. Nor was it’s focus on the interests of the European-descended peoples. You can argue that Christianity involves caring for other nations and not mixing with them; you can argue that it even justifies a racial hierarchy (curse of Ham) and the material inequalities of the world (the idea that it is God’s plan…and not following the God-fearing WASP work ethnic is the reason for Third Worldism, not European exploitation), this eliminating any right or wrongful feelings of White guilt. However, the religion goes no further than this.

“[I]n post-1945 America, the source of all new ideas is the university. Ideas check out of the university, but they hardly ever check in. Thence, they flow outward to the other arms of the educational system as a whole: the mainstream media and the public schools. Eventually they become our old friend, “public opinion.” This process is slow, happening on a generational scale, and thus the 45-year lag.
Thus whatever coordinates the university system coordinates the state, through the transmission device of “public opinion.” Naturally, since this is 100% effective, the state does not have to wait for the transmission to complete. It can act in advance of a complete response, as in this case the Supreme Court did in 1967, and synchronize directly with the universities.”

You are both wrong, though you (Hail) are closer to it. PC is not merely the enforced grammar of multiculturalism, but multiculturalist ideology itself. When an ideology has no roots in reality, the language it forces upon a people is the real content of the ideology. Apart from Jewish pluralism the most proximate origin of PC is without a doubt Jewish and Protestant feminists. It was they who first proposed to alter our speech and writing conventions, and that is a specifically feminine concern. Attempts are made by those too afraid to point to Jews and feminists to draw parallels with Soviet discourse and so on, but this is misleading; has little to do with Trotsky or Magnus Hirschfeld, though certain terms, even their semantic force, may have been gotten from such sources. Care must be observed in correctly assigning semantic morphology. That feminists have succeeded in having male authors use “she” for “he” in narrative, and that by nothing more than the momentum of fashion, is not the same thing as the enforcement of Soviet propaganda in speech or writing. While these feminists were inspired by Critical Theory and Marxism, there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING, in the writings of the Critical Theorists to do with suppression of speech, etc. This was a function of power attained by feminists and token representatives of pluralism in academia and media. It was not an inherited ideological practice.

The author is correct. Multiculturalism is the State Religion of the Globalist Empire.
Vladimir Lenin invented the term “politically correct”.
Leon Trotsky invented the term “racism”.
International Communism and Liberal State Capitalism are not as far apart as the Fabians would have you believe. Whether their ultimate leadership (and financiers, I might add) are the same, they both use the same tool box for Tyranny.
Stop calling it the Federal government and instead call it the Imperial government. That wakes some people up.
RESISTANCE!!

Actually the characterization of modern liberalism as Quakerism makes a lot of sense to me. I don’t have all the pieces handy right now to draw all the connections here but I keep seeing ideas that are recognizably ones the Quakers advocated showing up as fundamental aspects of people’s worldview today. Most recent example: in a SF book by a “conservative” author, the galactic prince, having fought his way across the lightyears to defeat the usurper of his parents’ throne, captures the evil usurper who did terrible things to the prince’s mother and prepares to kill him. At which point the moral compass character jumps forth: “No! You can’t! That would make you evil, too! You must forgive him and let him live!” The prince is impressed by this impeccable moral judgement, he agrees, his soul is saved, and the story ends.

I hope I don’t have to go into the multitude of ways in which this is utterly stupid and morally bankrupt.

Star Wars is another example – anger supposedly is the path to evil; Luke refusing to fight the Emperor is supposed to be his final moral awakening. No, it’s not. Anger is a useful emotion that can serve good or evil, and evil should be fought. It isn’t Christianity that originated this perversion of human nature. QuActually the characterization of modern liberalism as Quakerism makes a lot of sense to me. I don’t have all the pieces handy right now to draw all the connections here but I keep seeing ideas that are recognizably ones the Quakers advocated showing up as fundamental aspects of people’s worldview today. Most recent example: in a SF book by a “conservative” author, the galactic prince, having fought his way across the lightyears to defeat the usurper of his parents’ throne, captures the evil usurper who did terrible things to his mother and prepares to kill him. At which point the moral compass character jumps forth: “No! You can’t! That would make you evil, too! You must forgive him and let him live!” The prince, impressed by this impeccable moral judgement, agrees, his soul is saved, and the story ends.

I hope I don’t have to go into the multitude of ways in which this is utterly stupid and morally bankrupt.

Star Wars is another example – anger supposedly is the path to evil; Luke refusing to fight the Emperor is supposed to be his final moral awakening. No, it’s not. Anger is a useful emotion that can serve good or evil, and evil should be fought. It isn’t Christianity that originated this perversion of human nature. Quakerism seems to be the point where it became incarnate in a self-consistent philosophy that was advanced by significant numbers of people. Mencius Moldbug does go into quite a bit of detail on the historical connections, but he does so with so many words it’s understandable if people haven’t had the patience to read it all through.akerism seems to be the point where it became incarnate in a self-consistent philosophy that was advanced by significant numbers of people. Mencius Moldbug does go into quite a bit of detail on the historical connections, but he does so with so many words it’s understandable if people haven’t had the patience to read it all through.

(also, LOL at Auster linking to the comment here, rather than at Mangan’s)

Let’s not overlook the role of economics in the ascendancy of a “liberal” elite to power.

The United States was pretty decentralized up until about 1900, and was pretty successful, going from being a fifth-rate agricultural backwater in 1776 to being a world power of the first rank by 1900. I think it’s fair to say that it vastly out-performed the various European powers, with the possible exception of Great Britain. (That may be because Britain shared many of the same characteristics as the US had in those days: the rule of law, a small, light-handed regulatory system, and a citizenry that was not afraid to go forth and do great deeds.) Save for Great Britain, most of Europe was mired in relatively backward political arrangements, such as monarchy and autocracy, that probably stifled their development. (Think how truly powerful– economically, at least– Imperial Germany might have been in 1914 if the energy of the German people hadn’t been restrained by distortions imposed by the desires of the ruling classes for ever more armaments to ward off enemies, real or imagined– enemies of their own creation in their asinine drive for empire…… but I digress……)

In that time before 1900, communists and socialists had a hard time making the case that their highly-centralized way of doing things would be better than decentralized models, such as that embodied by the United States. After all, it was hard to argue with the success of the United States, economically, socially, or politically.

“Taylorism”, the methods of industrial organization popularized at the turn of the century by Frederick Taylor (of “time-and-motion studies” fame), solved that problem for the communists and socialists. Taylor, with his methods, brought about a revolution in industrial production: goods and services which had been– in 1875, say– available in relatively small quantities, of mediocre quality, and at relatively high prices, had– in 1925, say– become available in mind-boggling quantities, of vastly better quality, and at astonishingly low prices.

The communists and socialists saw the seeming miracle that Taylor’s methods had wrought in the realm of industrial production, and sought to apply those principles to human societies. They reasoned that human societies are in some sense processes resulting in some desired end-state, and they used Taylor’s methods to attempt to “re-program” society to produce an end-state they found desirable. Just as Taylor insisted on finding “the one best way” to produce a good or service, and apply that way ruthlessly, so too with the communists and socialists: in the extreme, “the one best way” became “The Five Year Plan”, and the ruthlessness took the form of the gulags, or worse.

Fortunately for us in the United States, we only got saddled with the Progressives soon after the turn of the century, not Communists. But, at bottom, the urge of the two groups (the Communists, and the Progressives’ modern-day successors of whatever party) is the same: to get us, the great unwashed, to follow their “enlightened” lead; to bend us forcibly to their will if we refuse to be led; and to punish us for our waywardness when we don’t knuckle under.

I find the label “Progressive”– whether it is applied to Woodrow Wilson and his fellow travelers of a century ago, or to those who are fleeing the label “liberal” today– to be darkly amusing: what, truly, is “progressive” about adopting a mindset that is in fact regressive, a throwback to the days of roughshod rule by elites? In centuries past, the “elite” was kings and queens and aristocracies; today our would-be rulers are styled a “technocratic elite”. What difference is there between the two, when the end result– repression– is the same? Some may plead that the technocratic elite has no evil intent, and they may be right. But all of us here are old enough to know what the road to Hell is paved with.

The “elites” have been able to rule for as long as they have because the Taylorist model of organization still works…. mostly. It began to break down in the 1970s here in the United States, and grows more dysfunctional with every passing year. We’ve been living in a “mass-production paradise” since at least the ’50s, if not longer, and the average man doesn’t want “mass” goods and services anymore. He wants some customization, and has been getting more and more of it, in goods and services, since the ’70s. And I think the average man (and woman, for that matter) looks at the “mass” services provided by government, and finds them lacking– one-size-fits-all solutions don’t fit any one person very well at all, and Joe Average is wondering why some customization can’t be provided. And he’s beginning to wonder why government provides some of those “mass” services at all, when private business could probably do it better.

I think that’s where the hope for the future lies– in the breaking of the hold that Taylorism has on notions of governance among those who are politically active. Taylorism has survived in politics for so long because it was so successful– as I said earlier, it’s hard to argue with success– but it’s not so successful anymore, and other ideas are coming to the fore again. The calendar may say it’s 2011, but the 1770s may be coming back with a vengeance, and sooner than we think.

“Multicultacracy in the USA clearly correlates with the waves of Jews and Roman-Catholics through Ellis-Island.”

How did those waves of Jews and Roman-Catholics arrive in America if the Protestant America of the time was so opposed to other religious/ethnic groups? This claim is “clearly” false. The real multiculti and anti-white outlook took root in America in the years immediately after WWII, probably as a reaction against anything which had even a whiff of Nazi thinking about it.

And one small point – the Catholic Irish, at least, arrived before Ellis Island was established as an immigration inspection station.

When working for a 3 Letter Agency we always treated Dept. of State as a hostile third world agency. Don’t bother to apply to DoS unless you’ve graduated from a ‘proper’ school. Proper schools included: Georgetown U’s Walsh School of Foreign Service; Harvard’s JFK School of Government; Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and 4 or 5 others. “Diversity” is a concept that doesn’t quite make it into reality.

While Northern Americans slowly abandoned the Puritan religion from which abolitionism sprang, the feeling of moral superiority over Southern Whites was too enjoyable to relinquish. The Civil Rights movement was not some black popular uprising in the 1960’s, it was actually something elite Northern Whites had been working to achieve for decades. Of course Jews may be eager to downplay their own role in this, which is also considerable beginning with Jacob Schiff. But they were at most sowing a field that the Puritans had plowed. In this endeavour they were aligned with the WASP elites, not opposed to them.
……

PC is a mix of the old Transcendentalist/Abolitionist yankee Puritanism with the much later Frankfurt School.

Without the yankee protestantism, Frankfurt school PC lacks its fanatical moral fervor. Without Frankfurt school sophistication, yankee protestantism is kind of aimless having to reinvent itself every few decades.

Together though, this foul brew packs a powerful punch with effects lasting decades.

Robert, you have cited the words of the Mangan commenter Charlie [above the ‘…’]. In as few words as possible, they boil down to: “Modern Leftism Stems from Protestantism”.

Allow me to offer what I think is a fair criticism of this idea:

The originators, and principal proponents, of this idea tend to be (in my observation) ethnically-conscious Jewish intellectuals who identify as conservatives. Some of their gentile philo-Semitic followers follow suit, some more loudly than others. There are self-serving interests at play here. [See below]. It is also notable that such criticisms tend to be not-too-different from those levelled by Jewish Leftists, i.e., of an “Original Sin of being a white-American”, just repackaged.

To pull on this thread a little more — and to get away from simply accusing people of ethnic-bias which some might claim is unfair (though I do think that is relevant in this case): I’d propose that the argument “Protestantism Causes Leftism” inherently appeals to people who desperately want to be PC and thus respectable.

In other words: There is no social penalty for attacking White-Protestants in the 2000s USA, and everyone knows it. Including, or perhaps especially, people on what Albert the State-Dept Drone calls “the New Right”. Actually, not only is there no real social-penalty for it, but one gains a good deal of respectability-points for doing so. Consider it almost like attacking Jews during meetings of Nazi leadership. (Or, ironically, like attacking “Nazis” today.)

Thus, many of those who argue this line are “PC-wannabes”, or, to use a confusing neologism, “PC Non-PCers”. One sees this a lot in the group that calls itself HBDers, too. They talk about race, but are very careful about it.

Consider the case of the prolific Steve-Sailer commenter who posts as “Whiskey”. Politically, he is a zealous neoconservative, perhaps the only Sailer commenter regular who is. He is strongly pro-Israel. He is strongly philo-Semitic. On race, he is xenophilic and idolizes blacks. He has stated that he would prefer to be Black or Hispanic, and loathes the fact that he is white (he claims to be of Scotch-Irish stock, which other Sailer comments constantly mock, implying that he is lying and is actually Jewish). He also blames all Leftism on those perfidious “Calvinists”. Needless to say, there is a theme in all the above: Whiskey’s positions are all attempts at seeming PC in a very un-PC setting. In other words, in the intellectual circles into which he inserts himself, he is the most respectable to the mainstream, so he’d think. In simplest terms, “In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king”.

One sees this a lot in the group that calls itself HBDers, too. They talk about race, but are very careful about it.

I think that many HBDers are (perhaps unconsciously) imitating the mellow/”aloof alpha” attitudes towards the subject matter, as demonstrated by Steve Sailer and Roissy.
It’s probably true that some HBDers enjoy being “more mainstream” than those thuggish WNs. But I don’t think that’s the prime motivator for their ideological mellowness. They’re mellow about race because that’s truly how they feel about it.

As to the specific merits of the argument that “Protestants are to blame for modern Leftism”: The excellent blogger race/hist has put it thusly:

Moldbug’s Logic In Sum
See if you can find any holes in this logic:

(1) There were a handful of radical abolitionists in mid-19th-century America.
(2) They weren’t Jewish.
(3) Therefore New England Puritans are responsible for 20th-century Leftism, Jews bearing no responsibility whatsoever.
….
You could start by explaining how New England Puritans were able to radicalize Jews such as Moses Hess and Karl Marx — while said Jews were still in Germany. This is kind of important, since most analysts see Marxism weighing rather more heavily in the pedigree of modern leftism than radical abolitionism. [Much more here]

Commenter Rob S. points and laughs at the absurdity of it all:

[To Moldbug:] I like your blog a lot, but your logic is not even close to world class. (Your style is.) Here you are all tu quoque and genetic fallacy, enough said.

Mistakes were made by the sons of Albion c. 1840-65. Ja, und? Nobody’s perfect. Anyway, the results did not destroy this country (or the West), and it should have been clear beforehand that they would not. The 20th C border-busting racial bolshevism is a matter of a whole nother order, on an infinitely more destructive scale. It is the main event. And it’s there that I predict you will carry on with your tu quoque and genetic fallacy lest you have to actually engage KMac-ism’s actual content.

Things were going OK here in 1920, Thomas Wentworth Higginson or no. Yes, universal wealth, the father of decadent vulgarity, was waxing. Yes, the American negro was on the loose. But non-coercive eugenics a la Lee Kuan Yew could have addressed both — that is, it could have improved both the white and black races. Instead of that, we have what.

Blogger Tanstaafl, with a flair for the pithy and biting comment, writes simply:

The “debate” between yourself [race/hist] and Moldbug captures the essence of the assault jews have long waged against all their hosts: It’s all the host’s fault.

Speaking of the U.S. Civil War — and the claim that it was simply one more episode in the neverending drive of that most hated enemy of all that is right and proper, Der Ewige Protestant — the blogger TGGP points out:

…for the north [the motivation for war] was not slavery but nationalism.

Finally, a comment by ATBOTL at the Mangan thread knocks it out of the park:

There is not really a direct line between abolitionism and modern anti-racism. First of all, most abolitionists were quite “racist” by modern standards.

Most importantly, after the Civil War, there was a shift in racial attitudes of Northern whites towards racialism. …By the early 20th Century, American Protestants had a strong belief in their racial superiority and a desire to keep America as their country. This was the time when writers like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were household names. During this period, the main force against racialism was “business interests,” that is, greedy traitors wanting cheap labor.

Jews had also begun to influence America by the turn of the Century. They started with advocating for “pluralism” and trying to down play the idea that America had any kind of ethnic base.

An excellent article and quite frankly scary. But above all else, not surprising in a way. It would make sense that the general national ideology of the country wouldn’t have changed that much from the strains brought over by the Puritans over to New England in 1620 and their more direct descendants in the region in the 1770s. (Sometimes barely changed at all.) Given how there are no real alternatives left to seriously challenge it anymore (internally since the American civil war and externally since the world wars), we’re seeing a frightening stagnation that once it has finally collapsed has the potential to drag the world into a dark age not unlike what happened after the Roman Empire collapse. Worse than that; there’s no where to escape to in theory unlike even there.

I have a question or so for anyone willing to answer it, however:

“Because, let’s fact it, bravado aside, that’s a difficult thing for an American to accept. It’s much easier for Europeans to accept this; they have a history of governments who need overthrowing. But in the long history of the American Republic, never, I think, has there been a time where the Government of the United States was ideologically committed to the wholesale destruction and replacement of the American people, their history, their identity, their ideals and their very being. The Civil War is a partial exception to that and, I’m starting to believe, a lesson that we Americans for too long smugly ignored.”

While I take it he’s referring to how the American Way has gone globalist in nature and the specific multicultural side to it in hoping to subsume its own citizenry into becoming a less-than-important cog in the machine, I was confused by the civil war comment. I take it he is referring to the CSA and how Americans since then had a sort of “there’s no way the USG would be willing do that to us like it did to the Confederates, after all, we’re its own people” mindset?

Hail – a very interesting discussion here.
I read excerpts from the quotes from ‘Albert’ on several blogs where they had been posted among the comments, but I am just seeing the comments in their entirety here.
I’m a little late to this thread, but I am hoping to post a blog entry about this on my blog soon.
-VA

Progressivism is protestant in the same way that the so-called Enlightenment was protestant: genetics. The same goes for Whiggism, liberalism, libertarianism, and all things revolutionary. The last 5 centuries of evolution have, of course, dramatically altered the phenotype; hence, the natural and excusable skepticism to the Moldbuggian Etiology.

Of course American abolitionists didn’t visit Marx in a dream, much less in person. But Marxism, despite its claims never amounted to much more than a bit of localized out-group anarchy until it was coopted (baptized?) by American Chilasts. Surely everyone has read Moldbug’s collage (see esp. the Wilson bit).

Once the disease has affected the whole (England, America, the USG, the entire Western world) teasing out the precise genome of course becomes murky, but protestantism, of increasingly virulent and diverse strains, seems to be right there at every major turn in the story of progressivism. This is no accident.

> But Marxism, despite its claims never amounted to much more than a bit of localized out-group anarchy until it was coopted (baptized?) by American Chilasts. Surely everyone has read Moldbug’s collage (see esp. the Wilson bit).

Wilson praised the February Revolution in that April 1917 speech. The October Revolution had yet to occur. What other part of the collage is inspiring your point of view?

RS,
These “Supporters of Moldbuggery” (as race/hist might put it) claim to believe that all evil emanates from a grand conspiracy by the evilest group yet known to the Earth: those perfidious white-protestants. The moldbuggerian commenter above, Nicoloso, has fleshed it out further to be on a genetic basis! :D (i.e., Northern and Central European gentiles, apparently).

Thank God that White-Protestants have genius Jewish conservatives and Knights-of-Colomubus street muscle to deliver them from the original sin of…being White-Protestants!

In the comment directly above, I imply that “Moldbuggery” is a pseudo-intellectual proxy for crude ethnic hostility against white-protestants.

Let’s give Nicoloso the benefit of the doubt and assume him to be of European-Protestant stock (thus foregoing the possibility of him arguing in bad-faith, as I think it’s obvious that Moldbug and other Jewish “conservatives” tend to do on this question). Why would our friend Nicoloso buy into Moldbuggery, hook, line, and sinker?

Race/Hist proposed it is in part because this Jewish neoconservative Moldbug is a good writer. Or, to negatively-spin it, he is a slick writer. He dazzles his readers with flashy and glittery prose.

I’d propose two further points: One I wrote about above, involves desire to be PC. Second is the principle embodied in that old cynical line: “There’s a sucker at every poker table. If you don’t know who it is, it’s you.” Now, everyone knows White-Protestants have been the “suckers” for decades running now. (True to form, many White-Protestants have no idea there is any sucker at the table). Enough people realize it, and want to switch sides: “the hell with being the sucker at the table, I am going to join the Jewish mob and help in the ongoing crucifixion of the White-Protestant.”

Thus, in these times there are plenty of reasons why a even white person of protestant background would embrace the frankly silly premises of Moldbuggery. (Being dazzled by flashy writing; Desire to be PC; Desire to get on a winning team by suddenly starting to shout “We Want Barabas!” and pretending you’d been shouting that all along.)

The actual merits are weak and silly. Implying modern Multiculturalism has been a conspiracy involving an evil cabal of white people, including Woodrow “The Klan Saved the White Race in the South” Wilson. Wilson’s foreign policy and his stance on race are two different matters. It is inconceivable that a man like Wilson would have supported Multiracialism.

The analysis of more contemporary events, however, and their ramifications, is where Yankee Babylon “connects the dots” in a way which impels readers to a better understanding of their historical and philosophical predecessors. Aston examines the era of the 1960s, for example, a period which he proves to be “the evil twin” to the 1860s. After absorbing Aston’s analysis and arguments, the reader comes away with a clear view of how the Yankee radicalism of the 1860s and the 1960s had its genesis in Puritan New England.

(It’s strange, isn’t it, how many Cohens and Levins and Rosenblatts it turns out there were aboard the Mayflower! There is an odd lack of documentation of this: I suspect an anti-Semitic conspiracy to suppress Jewish history, perpetrated by that pungent Cancer of Human History, the one warned about by that indefatigable Hero-of-the-Human-Race, Susan “Moldbug” Sontag).

The SDS, nothing but a puppet organization controlled by evil Boston Brahmins. Hollywood was and is, of course, dominated by Congregationalist ministers and sinister Quakers, who use it as a bullhorn to destroy America and its most valuable elements, those Sons and Daughters of Israel amongst us.

While we Europeans or European Americans had some plight in our own demise (we were probably too nice and accepting of others), the four most radical, anti-Western ideologies introduced over the past two centuries were all introduced and first popularized by Jews:

1) Marxism
2) Cultural Marxism
3) Freudianism
4) Boasian Anthropology

All four of these ideologies have created a revolution in Western societies, an inversion of values.

James,
The intellectuals behind all four of those were undeniably largely Jewish, to the extent that MacDonald calls some of them “Jewish intellectual movements”.

Meanwhile, the best that the silly “White-Protestant Conspiracy” advocates can do is point to some isolated, meaningless Time Magazine article (from 10 or 15 years after “WASP”-controlled Congress had put the National Quota system into law, an incredible success for racialism)? Or point back to the days before the automobile, to opponents of slavery? Yawn.

As far as I know, Moldbug supports the Third World invasion of the US in particular and the West in general. Regarding the former, he has clearly sided with Mestizos and other Third World hordes against European Americans.

That’s not accurate at all. He’s pushed plenty of HBD, he’s been perfectly solid about 3rd world immigration, and quite vivid and explicit about it. He’s occasionally lent support to WN, though he doesn’t consider himself one.

As for his screwed-up ideas about Protestants and Jews, yes, they’re largely false. Still, the TIME article is not nothing – not even close. On the other hand, it was written in the middle of an apocalyptic war, or just several months after (I forget which). On the apex of crisis, there’s a natural tendency to go to extremes. The aftermath of the first war created a hell of a lot of trouble, and probably some feared things would be even worse in the decades after the second.

The conference described in TIME was not out of the mainstream. I checked. There were presidents of serious colleges there.

However it may well have been the far left of the mainstream. I just learned of this $14 book which might be interesting:

The Old Christian Right: The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War

We know that Protestants were very active in the fight for the 1924 immigration restriction. So it won’t be shocking if there turns out to be a significant staunch-right Protestant contingent in 1945.

The late NYU professor Arthur Hertzberg writes:

In 1906 the National Liberal Immigration League was formed, including Poles, Italians, Germans, along with some Protestants from the older America, such as Charles Eliot, the pres. of Harvard, and Woodrow Wilson, the president of Princeton (who had moved away from his earlier nativism). Jews were the effective leaders and most active members of this association. The continuing fight for an “open door” was widely understood to be a matchup at the very top between Jews and Boston patrician anti-Semites.

Actually, the immigration of diverse Europeans may very well have created trouble here. I bet you haven’t really contemplated it all that deeply “from scratch” without assumptions. If almost everyone in the USA were Anglo Protestant (or Irish Catholic, or French Catholic), you might see less of the kind of elite power struggles that are bringing in the other foreigners. Ethnic uniformity and the resulting strong solidarity are very valuable; above all it is valuable (for everyone) that they exist among elites.

If you don’t think those other people coming in now are different from Europeans, you’re wrong. Most races and ethnies have the same behavior all over the world, and there are plenty of little diasporas — Japs in S. America, Chinese all over SE Australasia, some of everything in the present-day West, etc, etc. The same types act the same everywhere, in terms of crime rate, economic ability, rate of production of great art and science (if any), personality traits. Variation in environment doesn’t really affect them, unless it is truly extreme, eg the difference between our environment and North Korea, or the pre-industrial world where most people most of the time were fighting to just maintain their weight year by year.

Well, you will forgive me for my skepticism regarding your claim that “Ethnic uniformity and the resulting strong solidarity are very valuable; above all it is valuable (for everyone) that they exist among elites.”

It is quite likely that ethnic uniformity is more valuable than diversity, which is often a source of internal dissent. But is it ‘very’ valuable, to the extent where you should simply starve yourself of skilled immigration and another generation of taxpayers?

The European experience with the emigration of the Huguenots from France in the 18th century, the importance of the Dutch Sephardic Jewish community in creating an economic powerhouse in the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent, in Britain – I am looking at these bits and pieces of history, and they seem to be proving that the benefit of internal uniformity coming from ethnic homogeneity is hardly overwhelming.

Neither can you argue that the (whatever) diaspora all over the world do not change their behaviours in their new countries due to their race. First generation Liberians, when they landed on Africa, acted as Americans, called themselves Americans, and were treated as such by the nearby European colonial authorities. The Japanese-Brazilians who went back to their ancestral country after decades of Brazilian life often found that they were essentially Brazilians and were treated as such. Similar stories pop up with any diaspora you can name.

Yeah, by this point you probably figured out that I do not support white nationalism, unlike many people on this blog. It essentially is a throwback to the tribalism of the earliest days of human history, and is therefore unworkable.

And just another point on the original ‘Multicracy’ comment while I am at it.

The man claims that the ‘Multicracy’ is weaker in Europe than in the US, because there are less Muslims in their state bureaucracy than there are minorities in the American one. But has he considered the fact that ethnic minorities in the US, although they may be more numerous, are still divided (sometimes bitterly) amongst themselves along the lines of Hispanic vs Black vs Asian? This is not the case in Europe, where most minorities are united under the banner of Islam, that eternal nemesis of the West, a pesky activist religion with reactionary tendencies – hence the political problem.

Plus, blacks have got a very good reason to be in the US (slavery), Asians earned their right through hard work, and Hispanics are still western peoples, with half of them identifying themselves as white in the latest US census. I do not see a problem here.

There is one point that you are leaving out. . .I can understand WHY . . .
It is obvious that the US State Department is populated by dual-nationality types of the “tribe” who have their (native) country’s interests ahead of what is good for the USA.
I am reluctant to state the country in question . . . having been censored in other posts.
I am sure that you know the country in question . . .
I am also sure that you can vouch for me that what I am saying is absolute TRUTH.
Our country’s foreign affairs” system has been hijacked by these “dual-nationality” foreign globalists who do not care one whit about the USA.

Hi! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my previous room mate!
He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this write-up to him.
Fairly certain he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!

This is an amazing read and spot.on. I’m so glad to see the closing emphysis on the need for a “Plan B.” If we are to secure our people and our culture we have to begin by realizing that we are losing both demographically and politcally. First principals dictates that if we are to secure anything we have to secure birthrate. We don’t need territory to secure our existence we need babies. Our biggest imperative is to raise our birthrate so that at least there will be a population around long enough for them to awaken to their own needs. Is there any organized attempt to promote white birth? I for one would donate to a fund that would reward working class white women who have more than two white babies.